Shrug, a link was posted here and I went to read it. It's not like I frequent his blog to look for posts to criticise him.
As far as "sins committed" goes, his actions and speech reflect on his character and its not a recent thing. I don't think its fair that he deserves special treatment, but your house your rules. If you think that we shouldn't criticise him, I will abide by it but I don't agree.
Well, the bolded is the point of contention. I don't think so. I think that is a charitable reading. The "it may seem a small thing to you" is inconsequential. He clearly means that this is a big thing to him, to an extent which I think is pretty ridiculous.

It’s like I’ve spent my whole life being able to travel to Narnia and now someone put a lock on the wardrobe door….
What is this then? Anyway, Rothfuss is very much like Kvothe personality wise or should it be the other way round? Either way, its not meant as a compliment.

I don't see how corporations play into this. Are you going to litter all over the place so that you can "create jobs" for cleaners? Is it not alright then only because its taxpayers money? Its just basic social responsibility.
Besides, there will be no job creation. It will be dealt with by adding a duty roster for existing staff, and the other customers who are blocked by the carts will have to move them anyway because the staff will only collect them every hour or so.
You live somewhere where you have to drive to the store. Imagine if you are within walking distance. I've seen people push them right to their front door and leave them there.

It has been going on for at least a couple of years now actually. He's not a serious MVP candidate anymore and he shouldn't get it "every year". It still depends on the rest of the field, but he isn't the lock for MVP he should be if he puts in full effort.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The contortions in logic made to defend booster packs and criticise loot boxes is amazing.
You can always print more if there is demand. You are also more likely to run out of money and/or complete whatever you want before they run out of stock. Also, if you are wealthy enough to do that, you should be able to afford the expenditure anyway.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't see the difference. The limitation is physical and easily bypassed. If you wished to, you could just go over to the next store after you clear the stock of one store and so on.
Loot boxes are booster packs. They have the exact same mechanics. The only difference is whether they are digital or not. Whatever harm a loot box can have is the same harm a booster pack can have. Reckless spending. You can buy fifty loot boxes at one go, you can also buy a whole box of booster packs at one go. Where is the difference?
But sure, complain about Overwatch being the culprit of popularising loot boxes. Never mind that crates have been around forever as far back as TF2 or that Hearthstone players of all people are amongst the complainers.
To be clear, I'm not defending loot boxes. It is the defense of booster packs that gets me.

That's ridiculous. Booster packs serve the exact same functional purpose. Except that booster packs are explicitly pay to win. Loot boxes, depending on how they are set up, may not.
Yes, MtG offer "proper packs". Video games offer the "base game".
Loot boxes are gambling. That should not be in dispute. I honestly can't see what basis you are contending that booster packs aren't.

Yeah, its hard to hold banks to account. They play such a critical role that you can't just take away their license to operate or give them too substantial a fine. As the financial crisis showed, we prefer to bail them out rather than let them become insolvent.
As far as overdrawing an account, its a cost that is easy to quantify($x per transaction or x% of transaction value). Not so for lost sales, or inability to purchase that cascades into increasing costs.
I don't think you are charged by your bank but the rival bank you are withdrawing from. Banks want to attract more deposits. Accessibility is a competitive advantage and it doesn't make sense for them to allow users of other banks to use their facilities when they are the ones spending money to setup and maintain the ATMs. It may seem like a penalty to the consumer, but to do otherwise is a lose/lose scenario for them. They don't get your money and they still have to pay for the costs of the ATM.
That said, it would be better if they charged the rival bank rather than the consumer. It is probably already in practice. Just maybe not all banks are in the network.

I'm not familiar with Australia laws and regulations, but they should at least be incurring fines. If you fudge it a bit, fines -> government revenue -> reimbursing customers. It is no consolation, but the problem with reimbursing customers directly is quantifying the loss. It is hard to calculate and prove so its not really feasible.
Not sure how hardware failure is stupidity with money though. Failing to invest enough into backup systems?